1 Kings, Volume 12: Second Edition

By Simon DeVries

The Word Biblical Commentary delivers the best in biblical scholarship, from the leading scholars of our day who share a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation. This series emphasizes a thorough analysis of textual, linguistic, structural, and theological evidence. The result is judicious and balanced insight into the meanings of the text in the framework of biblical theology. These widely acclaimed commentaries serve as exceptional resources for the professional theologian and instructor, the seminary or university student, the working minister, and everyone concerned with building theological understanding from a solid base of biblical scholarship.

 

Overview of Commentary Organization

• Introduction—covers issues pertaining to the whole book, including context, date, authorship, composition, interpretive issues, purpose, and theology.
• Each section of the commentary includes:
• Pericope Bibliography—a helpful resource containing the most important works that pertain to each particular pericope.
• Translation—the author’s own translation of the biblical text, reflecting the end result of exegesis and attending to Hebrew and Greek idiomatic usage of words, phrases, and tenses, yet in reasonably good English.
• Notes—the author’s notes to the translation that address any textual variants, grammatical forms, syntactical constructions, basic meanings of words, and problems of translation.
• Form/Structure/Setting—a discussion of redaction, genre, sources, and tradition as they concern the origin of the pericope, its canonical form, and its relation to the biblical and extra-biblical contexts in order to illuminate the structure and character of the pericope. Rhetorical or compositional features important to understanding the passage are also introduced here.
• Comment—verse-by-verse interpretation of the text and dialogue with other interpreters, engaging with current opinion and scholarly research.
• Explanation—brings together all the results of the discussion in previous sections to expose the meaning and intention of the text at several levels: (1) within the context of the book itself; (2) its meaning in the OT or NT; (3) its place in the entire canon; (4) theological relevance to broader OT or NT issues.

General Bibliography—occurring at the end of each volume, this extensive bibliography contains all sources used anywhere in the commentary.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Zondervan
• Release date: May 29, 2018
• ISBN: 9780310588634

Simon DeVries

Dr. Simon John DeVries is professor emeritus of Old Testament at The Methodist Theological School in Delaware, Ohio. He has the A.B. from Calvin College, the Th.B. from Calvin Theological Seminary, and the S.T.M. and Th.D. from Union Theological Seminary, New York. His other books include The Achievements of Biblical Religion, Prophet Against Prophet, and Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.

Book preview

Editorial Board

Old Testament Editor: Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (2011–)

New Testament Editor: Peter H. Davids (2013–)

Past Editors

General Editors

Ralph P. Martin (2012–2013)

Bruce M. Metzger (1997–2007)

David A. Hubbard (1977–1996)

Glenn W. Barker (1977–1984)

Old Testament Editors:

John D. W. Watts (1977–2011)

James W. Watts (1997–2011)

New Testament Editors:

Ralph P. Martin (1977–2012)

Lynn Allan Losie (1997–2013)

Volumes

*forthcoming as of 2014

**in revision as of 2014

Word Biblical Commentary

Volume 12

1 Kings

Second Edition

Simon J. DeVries

General Editors: Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker

Old Testament Editors: John D. W. Watts, James W. Watts

New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin, Lynn Allan Losie

ZONDERVAN

1 Kings, Volume 12

Copyright © 2004 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Previously published as 1 Kings.

Formerly published by Thomas Nelson. Now published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollinsChristian Publishing.

Requests for information should be addressed to:

Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546

ePub edition May 2018: ISBN 978-0-310-58863-4

The Library of Congress has cataloged the original edition as follows:

Library of Congress Control Number: 2005295211

Scripture quotations marked RSV are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

The author’s own translation of the Scripture text appears in italic type under the heading Translation.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

In memory of my mother

Contents

Author’s Preface

Editorial Preface

Abbreviations

MAIN BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

The World of 1 Kings

The Geographical and Cultural Situation

The Political Situation

The Religious Situation

Sacred History as Theological Testimony

The Biblical Understanding of History

The Theological Witness of Biblical Historiography

The Historicality of Biblical Narrative

1 Kings as a Literary Composition

A History of the Interpretation of 1 Kings

How the Deuteronomist Wrote His Book

Source Material in 1 Kings

Toward the Original Text of 1 Kings

Available Resources

Problems and Methods

Parallel Texts in 1 Kings = 3 Reigns

SUPPLEMENT TO THE REVISED (2003) EDITION

1. Supplemental Bibliography

2. Critique of Postmodern Negativism regarding the Old Testament as a Source of Reliable Historical Information

TEXT AND COMMENTARY

Conclusion to the Throne-Succession Narrative (1:1–2:46)

Solomon Becomes King (1:1–53)

Solomon Disposes of His Rivals (2:1–46)

Account of Solomon’s Reign (3:1–11:43)

Solomon’s Divine Legitimation (3:1–15)

The King’s Wise Act of Justice (3:16–28)

The Administration of Solomon’s Empire (4:1–5:14 [Eng. 4:1–34])

The Preparation of Materials for Solomon’s Temple (5:15–32 [Eng. 5:1–18])

The Construction of Solomon’s Temple (6:1–7:1)

The Construction of the Palace Complex (7:2–12)

Hiram’s Artifacts for the Temple (7:13–51a)

The Dedication of the Temple (7:51b–9:9)

Notable Events of Solomon’s Reign (9:10–25)

Solomon’s Wealth and Wisdom (9:26–10:29)

Solomon’s Numerous Wives and Their Influence (11:1–13)

Three Potential Rivals: Hadad, Rezon, and Jeroboam (11:14–43)

Account of the Two Kingdoms up to Ahab (12:1–16:34)

The Rejection of Rehoboam (12:1–24)

Jeroboam’s Religious Innovations (12:25–32)

The Prophecy against the Bethel Altar (12:33–13:34)

The Death of Jeroboam’s Child (14:1–20)

Excursus: The Chronology of the Hebrew Kings

The Reign of Rehoboam (14:21–31)

The Reign of Abijam (15:1–8)

The Reign of Asa (15:9–24)

The Reign of Nadab (15:25–31)

The Reign of Baasha (15:33–16:7)

The Reign of Elah (16:8–14)

The Reign of Zimri (16:15–22)

The Reign of Omri (16:23–28)

The Reign of Ahab (16:29–34)

Narratives of the Prophets in Elijah’s Time (17:1–22:40)

The Elijah Narratives: Composition and Redaction

Elijah Challenges Baal (17:1–16; 18:1–18, 41–46)

Reviving the Sick Lad (17:17–24)

The Contest with the Baal Prophets (18:19–40)

Yahweh Renews Elijah’s Authority (19:1–18)

Elisha’s Call (19:19–21)

Three Narratives from the Omride-War Cycle (20:1–43a)

The Narrative of Naboth’s Judicial Murder (20:43b–21:29)

Two Narratives of Micaiah’s Unfavorable Oracle (22:1–40)

The Reign of Jehoshaphat (22:41–51 [Eng 22:41–50])

The Reign of Ahaziah, Son of Ahab (22:52–54 [Eng. 22:51–53])

Indexes

Author’s Preface

In every generation, Christian scholars need to search and listen, striving to learn from Scripture itself how better to interpret it, and accordingly how better to subject themselves to it. In my opinion, this need is perhaps more urgent with regard to biblical historiography than to any other scriptural material, and that for two reasons: (1) the OT (Gen, Exod, Josh–2 Chr) and the NT (Gospels, Acts) historiographic literature is more extensively covered in church-school curriculums; and (2) the traditional Christian hermeneutic respecting this particular literature has been weak. In effect, the sacred events along with the good and evil personages tend to be handled as role-models. We are invited to moralize about them, and to follow their good (or avoid their bad) examples. But the Christian religion is more—far more—than a right ethic. At its heart is a right belief, not so much a doctrinal confession as a personal knowing, trusting, and commitment to the one true God in his Son Jesus Christ. It is not enough to emulate Christ: one must embody Christ. So, by analogy, the other biblical personages, Abraham and Moses and David, Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah and Zerubbabel. None of these is alive in the sense that Christ is alive; but what they confessed in word and action must become alive. And that is what the Christian church must proclaim from the pulpit and teach to the young and the old. If this long lineage of personages from the historiographic literature belong among the great cloud of witnesses that surrounds us (Heb 12:1), we are charged to do more than just admire and imitate them. In hearing the books that tell of them as theological testimony—and that is what the historiographic writings are in essence—we are called to share their testimony and become part of their company.

Deep as the writer’s respect remains for church tradition, he has taken up the call to this generation of Scripture scholars to listen to the Bible again. To him, obedience to God’s Word entails letting it reveal how it must be interpreted, for only then can its testimony be fully and truly heard. As the Word of God, the Bible is verily the word of man. The reader will discover, then, that the most advanced methods have been usefully employed in preparing this commentary on I Kings. These are methods shaped not only by science, but learned from Scripture itself. The writer’s fond hope is that those who use this book will learn the new methods, such as form criticism, tradition criticism, and redaction criticism, along with the factual content of the biblical material. Better, more biblical, methods need to be learned and appreciated by all who give serious study to the Bible and endeavor to shape their lives by it.

SIMON J. DE VRIES

Delaware, Ohio

March 1985

Editorial Preface

The launching of the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillment an enterprise of several years’ planning. The publishers and the members of the editorial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such features were intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have been fully achieved time alone will tell.

First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a number of scholars from around the world who not only share our aims, but are in the main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational allegiance. The broad stance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is to be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation, and to the truth and power of the Christian gospel.

Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written for the purpose of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. Unlike several of our distinguished counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there are no translated works, originally written in a non-English language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare their own rendering of the original biblical text and to use those languages as the basis of their own comments and exegesis. What may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly approach to a theological understanding of Scripture understandable by—and useful to—the fledgling student, the working minister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers as well.

Finally, a word must be said about the format of the series. The layout, in clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed Notes. If the readers’ concern is with the state of modern scholarship on any given portion of Scripture, they should turn to the sections on Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition of the passage’s meaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explanation are designed expressly to meet that need. There is therefore something for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes.

If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors will have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded.

General Editors: David A. Hubbard

Glenn W. Barker†

Old Testament: John D. W. Watts

New Testament: Ralph P. Martin

Abbreviations

PERIODICALS, REFERENCE WORKS, SERIALS

THE HEBREW TEXT AND ANCIENT TRANSLATIONS

The LXX text is cited from A. E. Brooke, N. McLean, and H. St. J. Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek, II, ii (Cambridge 1930).

MODERN AUTHORITIES

BIBLICAL AND APOCRYPHAL BOOKS

Old Testament

New Testament

Apocrypha

OTHERS

Main Bibliography

COMMENTARIES

Barnes, W. E. Kings. The Cambridge Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1908.

Benzinger, I. Die Bücher der Könige erklärt. KHCAT 9. Freiburg i. B., Leipzig & Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1899.

van den Born, A. Koningen uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd. BOT IV/2. Roermond-Maaseik: J. J. Romen, 1958.

Burney, C. F. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings, with an Introduction and Appendix. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903.

Farrar, F. W. The First Book of Kings. ExB. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1893.

Fichtner, J. Das Erste Buch der Könige. BotAT 12/1. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1964.

van Gelderen, C. De Boeken van Koningen, 3 vols. KV. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1936–37.

Gray, J. I and II Kings, a Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia-London: Westminster, 1964; 2nd ed. 1970.

Gressmann, H. Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels (von Samuel bis Amos und Hosea) übersetzt, erklä und von Einleitungen versehen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921.

———. Die Schriften des Alten Testament in Auswahl, II, 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910–15; 2nd ed., 1911–25.

Kittel, R. Die Bücher der Könige. HKAT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1900.

Klostermann, A. Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige. KKAT. Nördlingen: Beck, 1887.

Long, B. O. 1 Kings, with an Introduction to Historical Literature. FOTL IX. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Mauchline, J. I and II Kings, PCB. London: T. Nelson, 1962.

Montgomery, J. A., and Gehman, H. S. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951.

Noth, M. Könige (1. Teilband). BKAT IX/I. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968.

Rehm, M. Die Büer Könige. EchB, T. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1954.

Robinson, J. The First Book of Kings, The Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Sanda, A. Die Bücher der Könige. EHAT. 2 vols. Münster i. W.: Aschendorff, 1911–12.

Schlögl, P. N. Die Bücher der Könige (etc.) übersetzt und erklärt. KAT I, 3, 2. Vienna: Mayer, 1911.

Skinner, J. I and II Kings. CenB. London & Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1893; rev. ed., 1904.

Snaith, N. H. The First and Second Books of Kings, Introduction and Exegesis, IB III. New York-Nashville: Abingdon, 1954.

Thenius, O. Die Bücher der Könige erklärt. KHCAT. Leipzig: S. Hirzl, 1873.

Trinquet, J. (with E. Osty). Premier et deuxième Livre des Rois, La Bible. Paris: Editions Rencontre, 1970.

Ubach, B. I i II dels Reis. La Biblia (Montserrat), VI. Viena: Monestir de Montserrat, 1957.

de Vaux, O. P., R. Les Livres des Rois. La Bible de Jérusalem. Paris: Editions de Cerf, 1949; 2nd ed., 1958.

Würthwein, E. Das Erste Buch der Könige übersetzt und erklärt. ATD 11/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.

SPECIAL STUDIES

Barrick, W. B. On the ‘Removal of the High-places, ’ in 1-2 Kings. Bib 55 (1974) 257–59.

Döller, J. Geographische und ethnographische Studien zum III. und IV. Buche der Könige. Theologische Studien der Leo-Gesellschaft, 9. Vienna: Mayer, 1904.

Ehrlich, A. B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches. Vol. 7, Könige. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1914.

Jenni, E. Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den Büchern Josua bis Könige. TRu n.f. 27 (1961) 1–34, 97–146.

Introduction

The World of 1 Kings

The break between 2 Sam and 1 Kgs is arbitrary, and the break between 1 Kgs and 2 Kgs is arbitrary. 1 Kgs 1–2 is definitely the original conclusion to the document broken off at 2 Sam 20, widely known as the Succession or Throne-succession History. These first two chapters of 1 Kgs were evidently severed from the foregoing material by some ancient editor, dividing up the Scriptures into lectionary-rolls of convenient length, and consigning these chapters to Kgs because they tell of Solomon (though they tell us also of David), the dominant subject of the ensuing chapters. There is far less rationale for the break that has been made between 1 Kgs 22 and 2 Kgs 1, for the latter chapter continues to tell of Elijah, the great hero of 1 Kgs 17–19 and 21. How strange it seems, indeed, to read of the death of Jehoshaphat in 1 Kgs 22:50, and then encounter him on the march to battle in 2 Kgs 3! The reader feels that the story told in 1 Kgs has been left an incomplete torso; but fortunately he is able to continue it in the book that follows. Broken off merely for lectionary purposes, 2 Kgs remains attached to 1 Kgs in all copies of Scripture since ancient times.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL AND CULTURAL SITUATION

Bibliography

Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible; a Historical Geography. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967. ——— and Avi-Yonah, M. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. New York-London, 1968. Baly, D. The Geography of the Bible, rev. ed. New York: Harper, 1974. ——— and Tushingham, A. D. Atlas of the Biblical World. New York: World, 1971. Kenyon, K. M. Archaeology of the Holy Land. New York: Praeger, 1960. Noth, M. Die Welt des Alten Testaments, 4th ed. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1962. Smith, G. A. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. 4th ed. New York-London, 1894. Wright, G. E. Biblical Archaeology, rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962.

Biblical commentaries often assume that the reader is well acquainted with the geographical and historical background against which the Bible’s story is told, and accordingly launch directly into matters of composition and text. Veteran students of the Old Testament may in fact be trusted to know just where and when the events of 1 Kgs took place, but beginners and laymen read the Bible too, and it is for them that some guidelines are in order so that this particular portion of Scripture may come alive in its proper time and place.

The present commentary will begin by providing some essential information concerning the world of 1 Kgs. That world was, first of all, geographically delineated and culturally defined. As readers of 1 Kgs move from chapter to chapter, they need to recall all they know about where the events in question took place and what cultural conditions played a role in shaping these events. To begin with, it is important to know that most of the narration is told from a Judahite perspective and concerns occurrences of special consequence to the land and kingdom of Judah. Jerusalem, captured but a few decades before by David, is here the sole great capital of Israel; or so it is from chap. 1 to chap. 11, and on into chap. 12. The great schism, or division, of the land recounted in chap. 12 brings a drastic shift in scene, for from here on Jerusalem is scarcely mentioned, and that in the sparse notices of the deuteronomistic redactor (Dtr) concerning the southern kings, Rehoboam, Abijam, Asa, and Jehoshaphat; meanwhile, various cities of the north—first Tirzah, then Samaria—rival it for importance.

A former Jebusite enclave, Jerusalem lay at the precise tribal boundary between Benjamin (Saul’s tribe) and Judah. Five miles to the south lay Bethlehem, the birthplace of David. Jerusalem also lay athwart the main north-south ridge reaching from the barren Negeb in the distant south northward to the Carmel range and the Jezreel valley, many dozens of miles away. Throughout the period of the Hebrew kings, walled Jerusalem occupied the southeast Ophel hill, directly adjacent to the Kidron Valley—with an extension for the temple northward. 2 Sam reports that the city was indeed heavily fortified, yet Solomon had occasion to improve its walls and construct a palace complex for conducting the administration of his increasingly complex realm.

Jerusalem is where most of the events in 1 Kgs 1–11 take place, yet the surrounding countryside is in the background too. Shimei runs off to Gath, just outside the boundaries of Judah (2:40). Solomon journeys to Gibeon, a few miles north of Jerusalem, to worship and receive revelation (3:4–9). The Judahite-Benjaminite hill-country occupies terrain that is rugged and rocky, with sparse vegetation. Chap. 4 tells how Solomon’s realm outside Judah was divided up among twelve prefects. This description presents a broad panorama of terrain, climate, and cultural peculiarities, for as one journeys northward toward Galilee, westward toward the Shephelah and the coastal plain, or eastward toward the Jordan depression and the Transjordanian plateau, rich variety prevails. And this variety is found not only in nature. In Solomon’s administration, it appeared in the mixture of nationalities and ethnic groups. David’s conquests, consolidated now by Solomon, had incorporated the native Canaanite population, the residents of erstwhile city-states, into the corporate body of his kingdom. Though their social status remained lower than that of the freeborn Israelites, and though their allegiance to Yahweh may have been nominal at best, they were indeed citizens (or at least subjects) of the United Kingdom of Israel.

But 1 Kgs also draws attention to countries outside Palestine: to Tyre of Phoenicia (modern-day Lebanon), whence came Hiram’s cedars and a wife for Ahab; to southern Arabia or the Horn of Africa, whither Solomon sent for gold and similar precious objects; to Edom and Ammon, the first dependencies to rebel against Solomon’s rule; and most of all to Egypt, of which Solomon was a probable dependent and from which he took a wife. The route to many of these nations was sometimes through the desert, but increasingly the sea became important. The sea on the south led to Arabia and Africa; the sea to the west led to Egypt, Phoenicia, and far-off Tarshish. More than anything else, the sea offered to open up this landlocked, hill-isolated kingdom to the culture of great and famous civilizations. It is small wonder that archeological remains from the beginning of Iron Age II (the period of 1-2 Kgs) show the sale and importation of strange and precious wares, manufactured outside the borders of Israel.

The narratives in chaps. 12–22 are mainly played out at the shrines and capitals of the Northern Kingdom, now split off from Jerusalem. Many events take place at the chief ancestral sites of the once-dominant Rachel tribes (Benjamin, Ephraim, Manasseh), and most particularly at the new residence of a prominent new dynasty, Samaria. Jerusalem had been a Jebusite town before becoming David’s capital, but Samaria was brand new (16:24). Built on a high, isolated hill, Samaria dominated the rich countryside while itself remaining half hidden from marauding bands and marching kings on the major highways through the land.

There were some who knew where Samaria lay and how to hold it captive—Syria in particular. (This is the familiar Greco-Roman name; the Semitic name for Syria was Aram.) The ancient Aramean empire had held its center along the upper Euphrates (Mari) or in the valley of the Orontes (Hamath; cf. Ebla), but by biblical times the Damascus region had become independent. It lay between the mountains of the Antilebanon and the eastern desert; it was in a strategic location for dominating Israel’s Jezreel valley and the central mountains of Samaria to the west, as well as the towns of Gilead to the south. It is with Syria’s serious threat against Northern Israel—vii harbinger of things to come—that 1 Kgs comes to an end.

THE POLITICAL SITUATION

Bibliography

History

Bright, J. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959. Hayes, J. H., and Miller, J. M., eds. Israelite and Judaean History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Herrmann, S. Geschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. Munich: Kaiser, 1973. ET, A History of Israel in Old Testament Times. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Malamat, A. The Aramaeans. In Peoples of Old Testament Times, J. Wiseman, ed., pp. 134–55. Oxford: Clarendon, 1973. Noth, M. Geschichte Israels, 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956. ET, The History of Israel, 2nd ed. New York: Harper, 1960. ———. Ueberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948. ET by B. W. Anderson, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Unger, M. F. Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus. London: J. Clarke, 1957.

Chronology

Albright, W. F. The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel. BASOR 100 (1945) 16–22. Anderson, K. T. Die Chronologie der Könige yon Israel und Juda. ST 23 (1969) 64–114. Begrich, J. Die Chronologie der Könige yon Israel und Juda. Tübingen: Mohr, 1929. De Vries, S. J. Chronology of the OT. IDB I (1962) 580–99. ———. Chronology, OT. IDBSup (1976) 161–66. Freedman, D. N., and Cross, F. M. Old Testament Chronology. The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Albright Fs). Garden City, N.Y.: 1961. Goldschmied, L. Zur Chronologie der Königsbücher. ZDMG 54 (1900) 17–36. Kamphausen, A. Die Chronologie der hebräischen Könige, Eine geschichtliche Untersuchung. Bonn: Max Cohen & Sohn (Fr. Cohen), 1883. Kleber, A. M. The Chronology of 3 and 4 Kings and 2 Paralipomenon. Bib 2 (1921) 3–29, 170–205. Lewy, J. Die Chronologie der Könige yon Israel und Juda. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1927. Morawe, G. Studien zum Aufbau der Neubabylonischen Chroniken in ihrer Beziehung zu den Chronologischen Notizen der Königsbücher. EvT 26 (1966) 308–20. Mowinckel, S. Die Chronologie der israelitischen und jüdischen Könige. AcOr 9 (1931) 161–277. Schedl, C. Textkritische Bemerkungen zu den synchronismen der Könige von Israel und Juda. VT 12 (1962) 88–119. ———. Worte und Jahre. Zehnerverschreibungen und Mitregentschaften. Bib 46 (1965) 454–59. Thiele, E. R. A Comparison of the Chronological Data of Israel and Judah. VT 4 (1954) 185–95. ———. Coregencies and Overlapping Reigns among the Hebrew Kings. JBL 93 (1974) 174–200. ———. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. ———. The Synchronisms of the Hebrew Kings—A Re-evaluation. AUSS 1 (1963) 121–38; 2 (1964) 120–36. Thilo, M. Die Chronologie des Alten Testaments. Barmen: Hugo Klein, 1917. Wifall, Jr., W. R. The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel. ZAW 80 (1960) 319–37.

In addition to the foregoing facts concerning peoples and places, there is need also to outline the main political forces that were at work during the period of 1 Kgs. No one can understand Israel or its history who does not reckon with an important detail of ancient Near-Eastern history. That is, the period from Solomon to Ahab (969–852 B.C.) comes toward the end of a long era of international peace. Up until the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties (fifteenth to thirteenth centuries), Egypt had held domination over much of Palestine and Syria, being kept in check only by the powerful Hittites to the north. The Euro-Asiatic Hyksos (dominating Egypt during the eighteenth-sixteenth centuries) were the last serious menace to traverse Palestine from the east. The end of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1200 B.C.) brought a definite hiatus in the foreign domination of Palestine. The tribal league of the Hebrews, like the adolescent kingdoms eastward of the Jordan (Edom, Moab, Ammon, Syria), was able to follow its own natural course of development. The Hebrews still had to contend with the native city-states, left stranded through the withdrawal of Egyptian support—and, as had been said, the last of these did not succumb until the time of David. There was also the growing problem of the Philistines, newcomers from the Aegean and recent residents of the southern seacoast; but they too were at last subdued by David, and in any case do not appear as any sort of menace in the books of Kgs. One serious Egyptian incursion by Pharaoh Shishak took place during the time of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:25–26); although this had painful effects for the cities on Shishak’s route of march, Shishak was in no way able to consolidate his success or organize an Asiatic empire.

So until the Syrians became a threat, the Hebrew kingdoms were allowed full freedom to develop their own political and national institutions—which is not to imply that foreign bonds were altogether ignored, as we see especially in the policies of Solomon. David’s great achievement had been, first, to throw off the external threats that had brought to ruin the kingdom of Saul (1 Sam 31); second, to unite all the Hebrew tribes in a centralized, permanent realm; and third, to set up a rudimentary bureaucracy for administering this kingdom (2 Sam 8:15–18). In the absence of any imperial claim upon it, Davidic Israel expended its pent-up aggressiveness in campaigns against Philistia, Moab, Zobah, Damascus, Hamath, Edom (2 Sam 8:1–14) and Ammon (chap. 10), creating a far-flung empire for Solomon to inherit. From the point of view of public administration, David’s most serious error was his failure to decide the issue of regal succession, a problem that was belatedly dealt with when Adonijah forced David’s hand in attempting to seize the crown for himself (1 Kgs 1). Whether or not the throne-succession narrative is historically accurate in every detail, it is certain that Solomon did have influential supporters in Jerusalem able to turn events their way.

In many respects, Solomon’s kingship violated the principles of Israel’s social heritage. There is no hint that Solomon made any effort to pay even lip service, as Saul and David had done, to tribal autonomy or the popular election of a charismatic individual. Solomon seized the kingdom by force, as his brother Adonijah had tried to do—the only difference being that he enjoyed his father’s belated backing. Little wonder that he went on to rearrange the territory of Palestine into administrative districts in a way that completely disregarded the traditional tribal boundaries. He also entered into alliances with foreign powers which his forefathers would have loathed and resisted. He allowed Egyptian cultural influence to become dominant in secular and religious affairs, with significant concessions also to cultural models from Phoenicia and the kingdoms of southern Arabia, without raising the question of incompatibility with the ancestral ideals of primitive Yahwism. The biblical historians recorded Solomon’s piety in building Yahweh a great temple. These same historians also recorded the destruction of that temple (2 Kgs 25) as God judged Judah for trusting the shrine rather than its living Lord. Also, Solomon was honored as a model wise man, in spite of the fact that he led a life of profligate ease (5:2–8, Eng. 4:22–28b) and notorious self-indulgence (11:1–8).

It is idle speculation to ask whether the United Kingdom might have continued a rise to lasting dominance throughout the eastern Mediterranean, had it only continued to exist as a single united entity under a single dynasty of kings. In spite of the Scripture’s paucity of details, chaps. 11 and 12 provide us with sufficient information to allow us to understand the essential elements that were responsible for the schism that created the separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the year 931–930 B.C. This rupture was, from the modern historian’s point of view, all but inevitable. There was, first of all, a deep social-economic disaffection, a bitter resentment on the part of the non-Judahite Hebrews, because their traditions of tribal freedom and equality were being trampled on through forced labor (the corvée) and heavy taxation—all ostensibly for the purpose of indulging Solomon’s lust for luxury and glory. Even more important was a longstanding sense of outrage at the way David, and now Solomon, had relegated the once-dominant tribes in the north—especially the premier tribes of the central highlands, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin—to an ancillary status. Where in Israel’s great national epic, the Pentateuchal narrative, had Judah been given so dominant a role? As some scholars think, Abraham and Isaac may have once been powerful southern sheikhs, but by all counts it is the patriarch Jacob, with his son Joseph (the eponym of Manasseh and Ephraim), who is remembered for fleshing out the patriarchal promise in terms of a multitribal structure. Northern sensitivity was probably strongest with regard to the way in which the descendants of Benjamin’s hero, King Saul, had been dealt with by David (cf. 2 Sam 6, 9, 19), and especially the way in which Solomon liquidated Shimei, ardent advocate of northern recognition (1 Kgs 2:36–46). This left a dull ache of despair that was destined to flame up in revolution, once a monarch less resolute than Solomon came to the throne.

The break did come; and when it did, tempers flared and skirmishes were fought, but in the end both sides settled for separation as a permanent arrangement. The bad element in this was that Israel, now divided rather than united, would never again be able to aspire to world power; alliances might be possible, but never an effective union. In religious terms, this meant also that the model union of twelve tribes was shattered. A process of sloughing off incongenial elements from an ideal Israel—continued century by century until the separation of Christianity and Judaism—had now begun. This breakup did give one part of erstwhile Israel (Judah) a chance to survive when the other part (the Northern Kingdom) succumbed to foreign aggression (723–22 B.C.).

In the Commentary the individual kings will be identified, and as much will be said about each of them as can be said. For the moment it will suffice to characterize briefly each separate realm, throwing out some hints regarding its historical destiny.

The Northern Kingdom comprised the tribes that had once been dominant and in which Israel’s most cherished traditions continued to be preserved. There appears to have remained no tangible link with the Saulide monarchy, perhaps because Saul’s ignominious death had marked him as one rejected by Yahweh. A nobody, Jeroboam, became king—to all appearances for no other reason than that he was the only northerner previously known to have been a rebel against King Solomon (11:26–27). He lived long, but his son Nadab was killed soon after he acceded to the throne. The same pattern of long and short reigns repeated itself with Baasha and Elah; also with Ahab and his two sons, Ahaziah and Joram. There were recurrent insurrections, those of Zimri, Omri, and Tibni; in the next century (narrated in 2 Kgs) by those also of several others. To be sure, Israel had strong kings, specifically, Baasha, Omri, and Ahab. One could speculate whether the ancient principle of charismatic designation still played any significant role in the risings and fallings of these kings; the likelihood is that it was honored with the lips only. The northern kings tended to become as despotic as their Judahite counterparts, while lacking the latter’s dynastic stability.

It can be plainly discerned, therefore, that the Northern Kingdom was going nowhere; it showed no awareness of a national destiny. Indeed, the eventual intrusion of Baalism suggests that Israel had very little sense of self-identity or covenantal calling. Apart from the external religious accouterments that lay on every side, this people’s public life had become essentially secular.

The Southern Kingdom, meanwhile, did show some sense of national destiny, epitomized in an idealized image of David. Every Judahite king was a direct descendant of this king and aimed to perpetuate his image. Supposing that the common citizens of Judah shared this same ideal, we can understand why they attempted no insurrections against the Davidic dynasty as such. As 2 Kgs tells it, Athaliah, baalist and daughter of Ahab, did attempt to wipe it out (chap. 11), but without complete success. When certain Judahite kings were assassinated, it was in order to substitute more worthy persons from within the Davidic line (2 Kgs 12:20–21; 14:19–21; 21:23–24). In the judgment of the deuteronomist (Dtr, the compiler and editor of the books of Kgs and probably of the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel, which work is explained below in more detail), only two Judahite kings, Hezekiah and Josiah, fully lived up to the image of their forefather David (18:3, 22:2). What counted in the end is that this same single dynasty had managed to survive from David (ca. 1000 B.C.) down to Zedekiah (ca. 586), a span of more than four hundred years. No wonder that the psalms and the prophecies allude to this as the eternal dynasty!

The reader of Kings needs to know, furthermore, that Israel was more exposed to foreign penetration than was Judah. Our previous sketch of geography is relevant here. Israel was surrounded by Phoenicia on the north and by Syria and Ammon on the east, while Judah had Moab, Edom, and Arabia on its eastern flank, with Egypt to the southwest across the barren reaches of the Sinai. Except at the time of Shishak’s invasion (926–925 B.C.), Egypt behaved more as an ally than a menace to Judah. There is no record of trouble with Arabia, and Judah had no more than border skirmishes with Edom (2 Kgs 14:7). The other eastern principalities struggled for some measure of independence but otherwise offered no aggression. As for Phoenicia, the bond of friendship that Hiram had forged with David and Solomon became a firm alliance with Ahab through his marriage to the king’s daughter, Jezebel (1 Kgs 16:31). It was with Syria that serious trouble began, first in the time of Baasha (15:16–22) and later in the time of Ahab and his successors. All the stories of 1 Kgs 20, 22, 2 Kgs 1–10, 13, are played out against this background. Hazael, the assassin of Ben-Hadad II (2 Kgs 8:15), was able to rampage pretty much at will over the Northern Kingdom (cf. 2 Kgs 13:3), and he even threatened Jerusalem (12:17–18). This was because Assyria, the great power to the east of the Euphrates, remained comparatively weak and unaggressive throughout this period. But a day was ordained when Assyria would become strong, Syria weak, and the two Hebrew kingdoms relatively strong once again. This is a story that lies beyond the reaches of 1 Kgs. 1 Kgs begins with Syria still a restive dependency of Solomon in the heyday of his empire and it concludes with Ahab and his sons beginning to stand up to the relatively mild bullying of Ben-Hadad, just prior to Jehu’s blow against the house of Ahab and Hazael’s assassination of Ben-Hadad.

The intricate problem of the overlapping reigns of the Hebrew kings will be taken up by the Commentary at its treatment of 1 Kgs 14:21 in a special section titled The Chronology of the Hebrew Kings.

THE RELIGIOUS SITUATION

Bibliography

Albright, W. F. From the Stone Age to Christianity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1946. ———. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1956. Cross, F. M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Fohrer, G. Geschichte der israelitischen Religion. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969. ET by D. E. Green, History and Israelite Religion. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972. Harrelson, W. From Fertility Cult to Worship. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969. Jepsen, A. Nabi; sozialogische Studien zur alttestamentliche Literatur und Religionsgeschichte. Munich: Beck, 1934. Kraus, H. J. Gottesdienst in Israel, 2nd ed. Munich: Kaiser, 1962. ET by G. Buswell, Worship in Israel; a Cultic History of the Old Testament. Oxford: Blackwell, 1966. Lindblom, J. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia-London: Muhlenberg Press, 1962. von Rad, G. Die Botschaft der Propheten. Munich-Hamburg: 1967. ET by D. Stalker, The Message of the Prophets. New York: Harper, 1962. ———. Die Theologie des Alten Testaments, II. Munich: Kaiser, 1960. ET by D. Stalker, Old Testament Theology, II. New York: Harper, 1965. Vriezen, T. C. De godsdienst van Israel. Zeist-Arnhem: W. de Haan, 1963. ET by H. Hoskins, The Religion of Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963.

1 Kgs is not a book of history so much as a book of religion. The story it tells would be of little interest to us were it not that, through the historic events that it relates, the religion of the Hebrew people was being shaped into the great universal faith that gave birth to Judaism and Christianity.

In this book a dominant place is occupied by those chapters that tell of preparations for the Jerusalem temple, its construction and embellishment, and its dedication (chaps. 5–8). As will be argued, Solomon very likely followed a Phoenician pattern and incorporated structures from a pre-existent Jebusite shrine, but this in no way changes the fact that Solomon’s temple was intended as a sanctuary of high honor to the true official God of Israel, Yahweh. A most fateful step was here being taken. Heretofore, Yahweh had allowed himself to be worshiped wherever he appeared. He was the God of loosely knit and rambling tribes. As the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel inform us, he met them in the desert, spoke to them on the mountain, moved about with them to their new encampments. Not even David had dared build Yahweh’s permanent dwelling-place in Zion (2 Sam 7). There existed, to be sure, some cherished tokens of his presence, in particular the ark, which David installed in a tent. That he went no further than this shows David’s respect for the tribal traditions. That he did go so far, however, foretokened the step that Solomon was destined to take.

Once the kingdom had been consolidated, the empire secured, and the city of Jerusalem turned into an increasingly pompous showplace for regal glory and power, Solomon took the logical, yet ultimately dangerous, step of building the temple. Clearly, the temple was meant to be recognized by the entire population of Israel, with its political dependencies, as the grand residence of Yahweh the champion God. Just as Solomon had adopted the Near Eastern ideology of the supreme resident God, with himself as king representing and serving the Deity, so did he adopt the Near Eastern concept of the temple as the divine residence.

This temple was to stand until destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 B.C. Living in the era of Nebuchadrezzar was the great redactor (Dtr) who put much of 1 Kgs together, and who in any event gave it its final polish. In his day Solomon’s temple was still standing (or, as some scholars think, was at least still vividly remembered), and the deuteronomist most definitely approved of it. He tells proudly of what Solomon had accomplished. He also speaks disapprovingly of rival shrines to Yahweh’s, praising or upbraiding the respective kings for either fostering or suppressing them. Our problem is that most, if not all, of these shrines had already seen long service in the days of Solomon. Solomon and his successors evidently tolerated a great deal of shrine worship in and away from Jerusalem, and the question is whether at least some of this was not legitimate worship of Yahweh.

There are three particular problems concerning shrines other than Solomon’s temple: (1) the status of clearly heathen shrines in the vicinity of Jerusalem (cf. 11:7–8); (2) the status of the (RSV high places), referred to in such passages as 3:3–4, 12:32, etc.; and (3) the legitimacy of cult objects such as the Dan and Bethel calves, installed in honored Yahweh-shrines of great antiquity, yet of questionable influence in themselves (12:28–30).

The deuteronomist condemns each of these—yet the reader is surprised to read how comparatively mild he actually is in 11:5–6, 9–13, when the most serious of Solomon’s improprieties, that of tolerating foreign cults outside Jerusalem, has just been described. A complete discussion of this phenomenon must be deferred for the Commentary, yet it is clear that Solomon here receives the benefit of the doubt from the deuteronomist, who chastises with less intensity the idolatries of Judahite kings (cf. also 14:22–24) than he employs for the northern kings, whom he often judges without citing any specific details to support his complaint, for walking in the sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

In chap. 11 we actually read the names of Ashtoreth and Milcom, representative of numerous other unnamed gods to whom shrines were erected for the convenience of Solomon’s various foreign wives (v 8). Since these foreign wives were of royal, or at least noble, rank, and since the practical purpose of attracting them to Solomon’s harem probably was to secure favorable political treatment from the peoples they represented, it may be conjectured that the building of these foreign altars was meant as much to be an honor to the foreign peoples they represented as a convenience for the wives personally. Although in the case of Pharaoh’s daughter (3:1, 9:24, 11:1) the relationship of countries was that of strict equality—or perhaps even of marked subservience on the part of Solomon—it is probable that in most other cases the foreign wives came from minor principalities or fiefdoms inside and outside Palestine. In the latter instance, Solomon may have intended to station these images of foreign gods in close proximity to Yahweh’s temple in order to create a literal symbol of the nations waiting in humble attendance upon the God of Israel. Although this explanation hardly coincides with that of the deuteronomist, it is probably close to historical reality. It presupposes that, in Solomon’s understanding, Yahweh had risen to a status scarcely higher than that of a national god, now for the while ruling supreme over the gods of subject peoples. This was no outright idolatry. Yet it was a clear violation of the commandment to prohibit any other gods before me (Exod 20:3).

The Commentary will argue that the were simply local shrines, whether dedicated to Yahweh or to other deities. The term is neutral. As has been said, it is the deuteronomist who is their chief critic. It may very well be that he condemns them purely from the point of view of his own period, and it may be that by that time some that once had been Yahweh-shrines had now become tainted with idolatry and eclecticism. Besides this, no doubt the deuteronomist objected to them from the ideological viewpoint of the entire Deuteronomic movement of which he was a part, insisting on the sole and exclusive legitimacy of the Jerusalem temple over against every sort of local temple (Deut 12:10–14; cf. 2 Kgs 23). One can be sure, in any event, that the champions of Judahite legitimacy did everything in their power, long before Deuteronomy, to encourage worship at the Jerusalem temple and discredit worship at the shrines in the countryside—particularly those across the border, i.e., at Bethel and further north, in the ancestral territory of the central Israelite tribes.

Finally, a few words about Jeroboam’s golden calves (12:28–29). With regard to the question of the material object itself, some scholars assert that these were ornaments, or emblems, or some special kind of special cultic implement. Others say that they were intended as actual images of Yahweh himself—thus a direct violation of the commandment prohibiting the making of idols (Exod 20:4). In the absence of any other references to Yahweh-images, it seems most plausible to choose the first interpretation, thereby making due allowance for the perspective of the deuteronomist. But even if the calves (more probably, bulls) were mere accouterments, they did introduce the ideology of fertility worship in a most perilous and objectionable manner. There is nothing that a bull can symbolize beside lusty fecundity. This is the vital force that was positively deified throughout the ancient Near East, and it came to special expression in the myths, rituals, and images of Baal, Asherah, and Astarte, the leading fertility deities of Canaan and Phoenicia. Later, Hosea’s polemic against Baalism was to show how prevalent fertility ideology was destined to become (mid-eighth century). So also the earlier stories of Elijah.

That Yahweh, the purely spiritual God of Sinai, should tolerate the image of a golden bull in his temple at Bethel is a surprising demonstration of how widespread eclecticism had become even in this early period. It is to Solomon’s credit that he tolerated nothing similar to it in his temple. But Israelite religious ideology was still in chaos, north and south. The deeds of the various kings were destined to influence it and be influenced by it.

Prophecy was a burgeoning new religious